Katello and foreman are nearing dev freeze in early September but there are
a few features centered around Atomic Host and Atomic Registry that will
need changes introduced in pulp-2.10. While I understand pulp-2.10 is
currently still in beta, I was hoping we could bring it into katello now
ahead of dev freeze so the dependent integration could be completed.
If we did bring in pulp-2.10, it would have to be with the understanding
that breakages on both sides would need to be fixed prior to katello
releasing. I know this is usually how things go anyways but I just wanted
to state it up front.
Also, are there resources to do this work? If I understand things
correctly, it's not just as simple as updating a repo file to point to
pulp-2.10, but that changes to runcible would also need to be made? Is this
something that could be done ASAP? Sooner means more time to shake out
issues.
> Katello and foreman are nearing dev freeze in early September but there are
> a few features centered around Atomic Host and Atomic Registry that will
> need changes introduced in pulp-2.10. While I understand pulp-2.10 is
> currently still in beta, I was hoping we could bring it into katello now
> ahead of dev freeze so the dependent integration could be completed.
>
> If we did bring in pulp-2.10, it would have to be with the understanding
> that breakages on both sides would need to be fixed prior to katello
> releasing. I know this is usually how things go anyways but I just wanted
> to state it up front.
>
> Also, are there resources to do this work? If I understand things
> correctly, it's not just as simple as updating a repo file to point to
> pulp-2.10, but that changes to runcible would also need to be made? Is this
> something that could be done ASAP? Sooner means more time to shake out
> issues.
2.10 should have additive-only changes from 2.9, I don't think runcible
would change unless it was to support something new in 2.10.
I plan to run manual tests with katello, but so far it is looking good.
That said, we'll want/need to run through them again once pulp 2.10 is
no longer in beta.
thanks,
Brad
···
On 08/24/2016 05:33 PM, Tom McKay wrote:
> Katello and foreman are nearing dev freeze in early September but
> there are a few features centered around Atomic Host and Atomic
> Registry that will need changes introduced in pulp-2.10. While I
> understand pulp-2.10 is currently still in beta, I was hoping we could
> bring it into katello now ahead of dev freeze so the dependent
> integration could be completed.
>
> If we did bring in pulp-2.10, it would have to be with the
> understanding that breakages on both sides would need to be fixed
> prior to katello releasing. I know this is usually how things go
> anyways but I just wanted to state it up front.
>
> Also, are there resources to do this work? If I understand things
> correctly, it's not just as simple as updating a repo file to point to
> pulp-2.10, but that changes to runcible would also need to be made? Is
> this something that could be done ASAP? Sooner means more time to
> shake out issues.
>
> Thoughts?
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "foreman-dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> > Katello and foreman are nearing dev freeze in early September but there
> are
> > a few features centered around Atomic Host and Atomic Registry that will
> > need changes introduced in pulp-2.10. While I understand pulp-2.10 is
> > currently still in beta, I was hoping we could bring it into katello now
> > ahead of dev freeze so the dependent integration could be completed.
> >
> > If we did bring in pulp-2.10, it would have to be with the understanding
> > that breakages on both sides would need to be fixed prior to katello
> > releasing. I know this is usually how things go anyways but I just wanted
> > to state it up front.
> >
> > Also, are there resources to do this work? If I understand things
> > correctly, it's not just as simple as updating a repo file to point to
> > pulp-2.10, but that changes to runcible would also need to be made? Is
> this
> > something that could be done ASAP? Sooner means more time to shake out
> > issues.
>
> 2.10 should have additive-only changes from 2.9, I don't think runcible
> would change unless it was to support something new in 2.10.
>
We would be passing username/password for docker registries w/
authentication. Not sure if there are other changes too, @partha?
···
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Chris Duryee wrote:
> On 08/24/2016 05:33 PM, Tom McKay wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Katello and foreman are nearing dev freeze in early September
> but there are
> > a few features centered around Atomic Host and Atomic Registry
> that will
> > need changes introduced in pulp-2.10. While I understand
> pulp-2.10 is
> > currently still in beta, I was hoping we could bring it into
> katello now
> > ahead of dev freeze so the dependent integration could be completed.
> >
> > If we did bring in pulp-2.10, it would have to be with the
> understanding
> > that breakages on both sides would need to be fixed prior to katello
> > releasing. I know this is usually how things go anyways but I
> just wanted
> > to state it up front.
> >
> > Also, are there resources to do this work? If I understand things
> > correctly, it's not just as simple as updating a repo file to
> point to
> > pulp-2.10, but that changes to runcible would also need to be
> made? Is this
> > something that could be done ASAP? Sooner means more time to
> shake out
> > issues.
>
> 2.10 should have additive-only changes from 2.9, I don't think
> runcible
> would change unless it was to support something new in 2.10.
>
>
> We would be passing username/password for docker registries w/
> authentication. Not sure if there are other changes too, @partha?
Generally when pulling in a new pulp release, we only initially
introduce changes required to maintain existing functionality. New
functionality is added after that is done in one or more PRs.
···
On 08/24/2016 05:48 PM, Tom McKay wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Chris Duryee > wrote:
> On 08/24/2016 05:33 PM, Tom McKay wrote:
>
> Thoughts?
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
<mailto:foreman-dev%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
<https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> > Katello and foreman are nearing dev freeze in early September but there
>> are
>> > a few features centered around Atomic Host and Atomic Registry that will
>> > need changes introduced in pulp-2.10. While I understand pulp-2.10 is
>> > currently still in beta, I was hoping we could bring it into katello now
>> > ahead of dev freeze so the dependent integration could be completed.
>> >
>> > If we did bring in pulp-2.10, it would have to be with the understanding
>> > that breakages on both sides would need to be fixed prior to katello
>> > releasing. I know this is usually how things go anyways but I just
>> wanted
>> > to state it up front.
>> >
>> > Also, are there resources to do this work? If I understand things
>> > correctly, it's not just as simple as updating a repo file to point to
>> > pulp-2.10, but that changes to runcible would also need to be made? Is
>> this
>> > something that could be done ASAP? Sooner means more time to shake out
>> > issues.
>>
>> 2.10 should have additive-only changes from 2.9, I don't think runcible
>> would change unless it was to support something new in 2.10.
>>
>
> We would be passing username/password for docker registries w/
> authentication. Not sure if there are other changes too, @partha?
>
>
> Generally when pulling in a new pulp release, we only initially introduce
> changes required to maintain existing functionality. New functionality is
> added after that is done in one or more PRs.
>
>
Of course, so yes @beav is correct.
···
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Justin Sherrill wrote:
> On 08/24/2016 05:48 PM, Tom McKay wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Chris Duryee wrote:
>> On 08/24/2016 05:33 PM, Tom McKay wrote:
I don't mind testing and doing prep work to give feedback to the Pulp team
of any breakages for a beta, but I have enjoyed seeing us avoid tagging in
beta's and to some extent RCs to our tags. I prefer we not lock ourselves
into a release that then ends up with hiccups and headaches and delays our
release. If a feature is being tackled that requires Pulp changes, I would
put the onus on the developers working on the feature to ensure that the
upcoming release of Pulp has everything they need and to some extent
doesn't break Katello. This would help ensure that the release nanny has a
smooth runway for the next release and that the developers working on the
feature can get there feature in on time.
Eric
···
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Tom McKay wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Justin Sherrill jsherril@redhat.com > wrote:
Katello and foreman are nearing dev freeze in early September but
there are
a few features centered around Atomic Host and Atomic Registry that
will
need changes introduced in pulp-2.10. While I understand pulp-2.10 is
currently still in beta, I was hoping we could bring it into katello
now
ahead of dev freeze so the dependent integration could be completed.
If we did bring in pulp-2.10, it would have to be with the
understanding
that breakages on both sides would need to be fixed prior to katello
releasing. I know this is usually how things go anyways but I just
wanted
to state it up front.
Also, are there resources to do this work? If I understand things
correctly, it’s not just as simple as updating a repo file to point to
pulp-2.10, but that changes to runcible would also need to be made? Is
this
something that could be done ASAP? Sooner means more time to shake out
issues.
2.10 should have additive-only changes from 2.9, I don’t think runcible
would change unless it was to support something new in 2.10.
We would be passing username/password for docker registries w/
authentication. Not sure if there are other changes too, @partha?
Generally when pulling in a new pulp release, we only initially introduce
changes required to maintain existing functionality. New functionality is
added after that is done in one or more PRs.
> I don't mind testing and doing prep work to give feedback to the Pulp
> team of any breakages for a beta, but I have enjoyed seeing us avoid
> tagging in beta's and to some extent RCs to our tags. I prefer we not
> lock ourselves into a release that then ends up with hiccups and
> headaches and delays our release. If a feature is being tackled that
> requires Pulp changes, I would put the onus on the developers working
> on the feature to ensure that the upcoming release of Pulp has
> everything they need and to some extent doesn't break Katello. This
> would help ensure that the release nanny has a smooth runway for the
> next release and that the developers working on the feature can get
> there feature in on time.
To add a counter argument to that. I think pulling in an RC that has
passed all of our tests prior to a pulp GA allows:
a) developers to play with it and find issues when they can be fixed
sooner rather than waiting for a x.y.z release
b) new features to be developed more easily
Waiting until a full release puts us at a disadvantage for ensuring that
that release of pulp does not introduce new issues. We could just as
easily pull in a GA release, find some issue and then have to delay
ourselves as well.
That said, I don't think I want to pull in a beta, and I think we need
to be comfortable that the GA release will occur at least two weeks
prior to our planned Foreman/katello GA release.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Justin Sherrill > <jsherril@redhat.com <mailto:jsherril@redhat.com>> wrote:
On 08/24/2016 05:48 PM, Tom McKay wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Chris Duryee >> <cduryee@redhat.com <mailto:cduryee@redhat.com>> wrote:
On 08/24/2016 05:33 PM, Tom McKay wrote:
> Katello and foreman are nearing dev freeze in early
September but there are
> a few features centered around Atomic Host and Atomic
Registry that will
> need changes introduced in pulp-2.10. While I
understand pulp-2.10 is
> currently still in beta, I was hoping we could bring it
into katello now
> ahead of dev freeze so the dependent integration could
be completed.
>
> If we did bring in pulp-2.10, it would have to be with
the understanding
> that breakages on both sides would need to be fixed
prior to katello
> releasing. I know this is usually how things go anyways
but I just wanted
> to state it up front.
>
> Also, are there resources to do this work? If I
understand things
> correctly, it's not just as simple as updating a repo
file to point to
> pulp-2.10, but that changes to runcible would also need
to be made? Is this
> something that could be done ASAP? Sooner means more
time to shake out
> issues.
2.10 should have additive-only changes from 2.9, I don't
think runcible
would change unless it was to support something new in 2.10.
We would be passing username/password for docker registries
w/ authentication. Not sure if there are other changes too,
@partha?
Generally when pulling in a new pulp release, we only
initially introduce changes required to maintain existing
functionality. New functionality is added after that is done
in one or more PRs.
Of course, so yes @beav is correct.
>
> Thoughts?
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
from it, send an email to
foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
<mailto:foreman-dev%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/optout
<https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
<mailto:foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
<https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
<mailto:foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
<https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
<mailto:foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
<https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
–
Eric D. Helms
Red Hat Engineering
Ph.D. Student - North Carolina State University
>> I don't mind testing and doing prep work to give feedback to the Pulp
>> team of any breakages for a beta, but I have enjoyed seeing us avoid
>> tagging in beta's and to some extent RCs to our tags. I prefer we not
>> lock ourselves into a release that then ends up with hiccups and
>> headaches and delays our release. If a feature is being tackled that
>> requires Pulp changes, I would put the onus on the developers working
>> on the feature to ensure that the upcoming release of Pulp has
>> everything they need and to some extent doesn't break Katello. This
>> would help ensure that the release nanny has a smooth runway for the
>> next release and that the developers working on the feature can get
>> there feature in on time.
>
> To add a counter argument to that. I think pulling in an RC that has
> passed all of our tests prior to a pulp GA allows:
>
> a) developers to play with it and find issues when they can be fixed
> sooner rather than waiting for a x.y.z release
> b) new features to be developed more easily
>
> Waiting until a full release puts us at a disadvantage for ensuring
> that that release of pulp does not introduce new issues. We could just
> as easily pull in a GA release, find some issue and then have to delay
> ourselves as well.
>
> That said, I don't think I want to pull in a beta, and I think we need
> to be comfortable that the GA release will occur at least two weeks
> prior to our planned Foreman/katello GA release.
>
> -Justin
>
>
For awareness, it sounds like there may be one more beta cycle for pulp
2.10 prior to it's GA release. Based that, I'd estimate GA may not be
for 2-3 weeks. That said, refer to upstream pulp team for official
release updates and dates.
···
On 08/25/2016 08:50 AM, Justin Sherrill wrote:
> On 08/24/2016 09:08 PM, Eric D Helms wrote:
>>
>>
>> Eric
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Tom McKay > > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Justin Sherrill >> wrote:
>>
>> On 08/24/2016 05:48 PM, Tom McKay wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Chris Duryee >>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/24/2016 05:33 PM, Tom McKay wrote:
>>> > Katello and foreman are nearing dev freeze in early
>>> September but there are
>>> > a few features centered around Atomic Host and Atomic
>>> Registry that will
>>> > need changes introduced in pulp-2.10. While I
>>> understand pulp-2.10 is
>>> > currently still in beta, I was hoping we could bring
>>> it into katello now
>>> > ahead of dev freeze so the dependent integration could
>>> be completed.
>>> >
>>> > If we did bring in pulp-2.10, it would have to be with
>>> the understanding
>>> > that breakages on both sides would need to be fixed
>>> prior to katello
>>> > releasing. I know this is usually how things go
>>> anyways but I just wanted
>>> > to state it up front.
>>> >
>>> > Also, are there resources to do this work? If I
>>> understand things
>>> > correctly, it's not just as simple as updating a repo
>>> file to point to
>>> > pulp-2.10, but that changes to runcible would also
>>> need to be made? Is this
>>> > something that could be done ASAP? Sooner means more
>>> time to shake out
>>> > issues.
>>>
>>> 2.10 should have additive-only changes from 2.9, I don't
>>> think runcible
>>> would change unless it was to support something new in 2.10.
>>>
>>>
>>> We would be passing username/password for docker registries
>>> w/ authentication. Not sure if there are other changes too,
>>> @partha?
>>
>> Generally when pulling in a new pulp release, we only
>> initially introduce changes required to maintain existing
>> functionality. New functionality is added after that is done
>> in one or more PRs.
>>
>>
>> Of course, so yes @beav is correct.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Thoughts?
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to
>>> the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
>>> from it, send an email to
>>> foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>>> Google Groups "foreman-dev" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
>>> from it, send an email to
>>> foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>> Google Groups "foreman-dev" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
>> it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>> Google Groups "foreman-dev" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Eric D. Helms
>> Red Hat Engineering
>> Ph.D. Student - North Carolina State University
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "foreman-dev" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "foreman-dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> I don't mind testing and doing prep work to give feedback to the Pulp team
> of any breakages for a beta, but I have enjoyed seeing us avoid tagging in
> beta's and to some extent RCs to our tags. I prefer we not lock ourselves
> into a release that then ends up with hiccups and headaches and delays our
> release. If a feature is being tackled that requires Pulp changes, I would
> put the onus on the developers working on the feature to ensure that the
> upcoming release of Pulp has everything they need and to some extent
> doesn't break Katello. This would help ensure that the release nanny has a
> smooth runway for the next release and that the developers working on the
> feature can get there feature in on time.
>
>
> To add a counter argument to that. I think pulling in an RC that has
> passed all of our tests prior to a pulp GA allows:
>
> a) developers to play with it and find issues when they can be fixed
> sooner rather than waiting for a x.y.z release
> b) new features to be developed more easily
>
> Waiting until a full release puts us at a disadvantage for ensuring that
> that release of pulp does not introduce new issues. We could just as
> easily pull in a GA release, find some issue and then have to delay
> ourselves as well.
>
There are ways developers can use a newer version of Pulp for testing and
development outside of updating our tags.
Really, for me, this just comes down to, once we have tagged in a beta or
RC, and we hit an issue that delays our release what are our recourse is
given we may have accepted patches on this presumption that require that
functionality in the release.
Eric
···
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Justin Sherrill wrote:
> On 08/24/2016 09:08 PM, Eric D Helms wrote:
That said, I don’t think I want to pull in a beta, and I think we need to
be comfortable that the GA release will occur at least two weeks prior to
our planned Foreman/katello GA release.
Katello and foreman are nearing dev freeze in early September but
there are
a few features centered around Atomic Host and Atomic Registry that
will
need changes introduced in pulp-2.10. While I understand pulp-2.10 is
currently still in beta, I was hoping we could bring it into katello
now
ahead of dev freeze so the dependent integration could be completed.
If we did bring in pulp-2.10, it would have to be with the
understanding
that breakages on both sides would need to be fixed prior to katello
releasing. I know this is usually how things go anyways but I just
wanted
to state it up front.
Also, are there resources to do this work? If I understand things
correctly, it’s not just as simple as updating a repo file to point to
pulp-2.10, but that changes to runcible would also need to be made?
Is this
something that could be done ASAP? Sooner means more time to shake out
issues.
2.10 should have additive-only changes from 2.9, I don’t think runcible
would change unless it was to support something new in 2.10.
We would be passing username/password for docker registries w/
authentication. Not sure if there are other changes too, @partha?
Generally when pulling in a new pulp release, we only initially
introduce changes required to maintain existing functionality. New
functionality is added after that is done in one or more PRs.
